No doubt that a ASuM hitting top side would do exactly as you say. However, during the 80s the Russians nonetheless publicly wondered about the belt armor on the hull and their ability to penetrate it.
Is a modern battleship feasible?
- Thread starter F40Racer
- Start date
My best recollection says the armour bet on an Iowa class is 16in(40cm) thick.
My personal feelings are that BBs are completly out moded for modern naval combat. The cost for manning one of these levithans is astronimical.
Perhaps a nation may venture into the realm of a battleship or battle cruiser. But why? Smaller CGs and DDGs with deadly accurate missiles are more proficient at modern naval warfighting.
These are the general statsitics of an Iowa class as reconfigured
My personal feelings are that BBs are completly out moded for modern naval combat. The cost for manning one of these levithans is astronimical.
Perhaps a nation may venture into the realm of a battleship or battle cruiser. But why? Smaller CGs and DDGs with deadly accurate missiles are more proficient at modern naval warfighting.
These are the general statsitics of an Iowa class as reconfigured
Just to go a little further. Away from battleships, -cruisers, are guns for fire support completely outdated? The DDX has "only" 2 155mm guns for NFS. Couldn't it be helpfull to have at least one "batterie of artillerie" on a ship? I'm thinking of navies that don't have an armada of supercarriers, LHAs and LPDs at their dispossal here.
CMs are expensive, and with modern systems such a gunboat/ -ship could probably work with a really low manning.
CMs are expensive, and with modern systems such a gunboat/ -ship could probably work with a really low manning.
Naval Gun Fire Suppourt is almost completly oumoded. There may never ever again be ,by the USMC, a direct frontal assult on a beach such as Normandy or Inchon. Modern tactics call for a flanking manuever away from enemy strongholds and a flanking move to attack the enemy.
Attack aircraft can soften up enemy strongholds better than Naval gun fire.
Attack aircraft can soften up enemy strongholds better than Naval gun fire.
Iowas belt is 310 mm thick...For example Yamato has a 410 mm. But Iowa can do remarkable 33 kn against Yamatos 27 kn....
Battleships are not mented for fire support of coastal targets, they naturally are able to do it but they are way too expensive to be build for that role solely (which is however to sole role of heavy artillery in seas today).
There are cheaper alternatives. Ever heard about monitors? Its a shipclass with small, slow and clumsy hulls with usually one turret (which takes most of the space) of battleship caliber guns. They are cheap but could bring the same ammount of "fire" to the shores as Battleships did.
Battleships are not mented for fire support of coastal targets, they naturally are able to do it but they are way too expensive to be build for that role solely (which is however to sole role of heavy artillery in seas today).
There are cheaper alternatives. Ever heard about monitors? Its a shipclass with small, slow and clumsy hulls with usually one turret (which takes most of the space) of battleship caliber guns. They are cheap but could bring the same ammount of "fire" to the shores as Battleships did.
I think... the cost of maintaining a 2,200 ton wood-hull frigate that runs on sails would be far less than a 45,000-56,000 ton BB!
But seriously, the BB's role were simply replaced by CV's. Carrier aircraft can deliver munitions at much longer distance than BB guns. The arsenal ship attempted to address this by using mostly long-ranged cruise missiles. Although the program wasn't continued, we do have the Ohio-class SSGN's today, which has pretty awesome firepower with 154 Tomahawk's.
If we were to match a "modernized' Iowa-class BB vs. Ohio-class SSGN today, I think I'd take the SSGN.
My idea about a modern battleship is what Jeff described in the Arsenal Ship. Basically a large ship with loads and loads of VLS.
A large ship is the only way that can carry more and more of larger longer ranged antiship missiles and cruise missiles. Sure the past battleship is obsolete, but these new ships can stand off hundreds, if not thousands of kilometers away. and send large numbers of huge AshMs and cruise missiles on your way.
A large ship is the only way that can carry more and more of larger longer ranged antiship missiles and cruise missiles. Sure the past battleship is obsolete, but these new ships can stand off hundreds, if not thousands of kilometers away. and send large numbers of huge AshMs and cruise missiles on your way.
Kim Jong Il
Banned Idiot
I agree, the Battleship should be put back into service, and be armed with say nine or twelve 16in guns and hundreds of cruse missiles. they had to use the battleship over and over again and it was used in the Gulf War, so yeah they really need to keep the battleship in service.:china:
I once read study on turning a BB into "arsenal ship" by adding Mk 41 cells. One of the 16in turrets would have been removed. However naval engineers figured out that if any 16in turret was removed it would seriouslly effect the seaworthyness of the ship in a most negative manner.
Keeping a BB in service is not cost effective. The fuel, the manpower and the ammunition cost is prohibitive. the USN has not enough trained personnel to operate the unique machinery plant on an Iowa class.
The USN navy already has such a ship in the Ohio SSGN conversion. 154 Tomahawk missiles is a large foot print. To add, it is far more survivable and is virtually undetectable until the missile is fired.
I think they should reclassify current guided missile ships. Japan is about to commision the Atago, a "destroyer" that displaces 10,000 tons full load. The Burkes displaces about 9,500 tons. Can we just call them battleships instead of destroyers and be done with it.